Datasets:

PleIAs

/

English-PD

like 1

Follow

PleIAs 171

cihm_08193

Baptism versus rantism [microform] : baptism as a New Testament ordinance proved to be a covering of the person with water, and rantism, sprinkling -not a New Testament ordinance : a reply to the misstatements and fallacies of Rev. W.A. McKay, B.A.

,n<4u IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1 ^ 1 1.6 ^ 6" ► Va ^ /a VI ^. el ^^ .v^ <p '/a y //a Photographic Sciences Corporation s. ip i\ o ^^ ^\ fc 6^ <> ^<h'- 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CiHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute/ for Historical Microraproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. I / I Coloured covers/ D D D □ D D D 0 □ D Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manc,je Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Addiiional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d^colordes, tachet6es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages detachees Shuwthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gale de I'impression ides supplementary materic prend du mat6riel supplementaire edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ □ Includes supplementary material/ Comi I I Only edition available/ n Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement ODScurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es & nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X V 12X 16X 20X 26X 24X 28X 30X ^—■^^ n 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Izaak Walton Klllam Memorial Library Dalhousie University L'exemplaire i\\vn6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and endmg on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — *► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes SL-Vants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^/^V7c?-^ I?? fT» l^nantitieift Of TH^nty or more a Di«K«oant of !iO per eent. BAPTISMTereusRANTISM '* ltfi|»tlHanofi-><% ' Olpi>ln«' lmm«^rHi«n.'> " ltfiiitiMiii(«0'-'% Mifrliikllnir/* Robinson's Greek Lexicon of N T. pAgei iiy Hml 6+; BAPTISM AS A M IfSIAilil OHDINANCE A COVERING OF THE PERSON WITH WATER, ANn TO THE mtsvStatrmv;nts and fallaoiks REV W A MoKAY, B A., nv ; RKV CALVIN OOODSPEED. M.A., ■' He ihu! »v iii>.t ill U\< own cauvcj settmeth in^t, ^ bw ill- iieijj;iil>o( ooiiieth and KCRivhetl) him Tr'H' -f^ii-7 WOOOfiTOCK: PRINTED AT THE ' TIMRS" HOOK AND /OH PUrNTINfi OKprCFi. j88o. M Postate Free ea Receiit of Frite t? Jaies Efamlii, WoolM. Tr'j-r.-sT / '■■ \B^:OsU'Sf>'%mMtM ^ ' ~i) JOHN JAMES STEWART COLLECTION '' J A ■'f * - , ■■■ '- Immersion proved to he not the only mode of Baptism, and not a Scriptural mode at all, htit an Ini;ention of the Church of Ront^^. -This is the title of a Pamphlet of 46 pages by Rev. W. A. Mackay of Woodstock, Ont., published by C. B. Robinson, Toronto. Price 10 cents.-: — A trenchant and clever essay. BAPTISM versus RANTISM m nM Z!>^ Bu|)tiNiii09— A *DIpplns' Immersion." RnntlstmoH— A MprinKlInic'' Robinson's Greek Lexicon of N. T. pages 119 and 64: BAPTISM AS A M TFSTAiNI OSOINANCE PROVKD TO BE A COVERINe OF THE PERSON WITH f ATEE. AND TO THE MISSTATEMENTS AND FALLACIES OF • KEY. W. A. McKAY, B.A., BY REV CALVIN GOODSPEED, M.A. " He that is first in his own cau.ie seemeth just, hut his neighbor cometh and searcheth him. — Prov. iR:i7< WOODSTOCK : PRINTKlf Ai- IHE "TIMES" I'.OOK AND JOB IMilNTING OFFICE. i38o. Jul ,'l^^'^u<^ ^ mT f f -»»( y ^:{ "13, ^ ,. ^. , » ' f V ^ ft ^O,^;' <i^ti i -f-r'-r>" T.- r:'.^^??-' i ♦ v^' *'. I V'- . ,■/' -..I ' //; *-;.• ':*« ■•rri , , i " ■ <f^ ^'^ ^' ,« . ; (! -•^' '>I^ A ■-* '■ « til p I ,-t KU: I i '^O ''\ ^y- T"' * . ./ ■Ti r '1 r'S^* ij ■^{ l*S If^ r,* 4^ — -.' 'f'oH.t ?o A. aa> t '. t-x * i;«fftv:v A PAMPHLET on Baptism by the Rev, W. A. McKay, B.A., of Woodstock, has been put into my hands. At the request of quite a number of friends I propose to give it a review, not because I think it of any Hcholarly worth, but because it is fitted to impose on the ignorant and careless and because, also, a reply to it will be an answer to productions of a similar kmd which are being freely circulated. I regret exceedingly that the author of this pamphlet, for whom I have had a high regard, has been betrayed into a bitterness of style which is sadly out of keeping with the sacred work of defending or advancing the truth. To seek to carry a point by appeals to prejudice is miserable work, with which I propose to have nothing to do. Neither haye I any ill words to speak of the denomination to which the author belongs, and which in his harsh spirit, I should hope he misrepresents. Their loyalty to what they believe to be true I respect, while com- j elled to ihink them in error on some points. I recognize, also, in all denominations true and noble men, with the friendship of some of whom I am honored. Any barrier to the fullest com- munion with them gives me pain and the time when the last one is removed by the universal prevalence of the whole truth, is contemplated with the keenest pleasure. But while this is true, and 1 believe that Baptists generally share with me in this feel- ing, we think ourselves compelled to act upon a principle well expressed in thif« pamphlet, that " liberality to error is treason to the truth." I shall therefore show no mercy on fallacies, or misre- presentations, or boastful pretensions ff superiority in scholarship to the great men of the past and present. If this should give an air of severity to some parts of the discussion I cannot help it. Before proceeding to our chief work a brief reference is required to some general insinuations against our people as a body. Is it fair to judge of all Baptists by a few harsh expressions culled here and there from two of their writers? This is a good way to work up prejudice, but it is not the way to deal justly. It will be the strangest news to most, and to none more than to Presbyterian ministers themselves, that they are silent about Baptisn: out of forbearance to Baptist errors. We have always thought them the last men to forbear to attack any error, much less what they may esteem Baptist errors Neither has it ever come to our ears that Baptists, of all men, have resorted to the snivelling of conscious weakness when attacked, by raising the cry of " persecution," " disturbers of the peace," &c. 1 have always found them standing up fearlensly against all comers, while they use their God- given weapons right manfully. If Baptists so »' constantly apply the most insulting language to the conscien- tious convictions and practices of others " they are guilty of a 2reat rudeness, which is very common in all denominations ; but it is rather hard to be taken to task by the author of a pamphlet which makes this one of its staples, witness his references to immersion, as a " course of water," as " soaking sin out and grace in," his pleasantry over the case of re-baptism wherein his description is a caricature of the facts, and the gusto with which he uses the expressions " watery grave, ' " swollen flood." '' liquid tomb," &c., &c., &c. We might add that his merriment over the scrupulousness of Baptists in rendering an exact obedi- ence to what they believe to be the divine instructions, is more sad than seemly, in one who professes to be himself a servant of Christ. Whatever others may think, and whatever others may practice, we believe that such passages as *' we should obey God rather than men," and " he that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me," do teach that, in the case of con- sci frc ag< se^ vi( lii on] sol sU of I int bel fiWl dc reference ia >eopJe as a j> scientious conviolion, the higher authority of God does absolve us from the lower authority of parents when the latter is arrayed against the former. We are surprised that this pamphlet should seek to teach that parents have the right to crush down the con- victions of their children by forcing them to keep within the limits of a hereditary belief. Here is an introduction to a fierce onslaught upon Baptist unchariiablenean, '' No wonder that with so much indifference on our part and so much misrepresentation, slander, and unscrupulous zeal on the part of immersionists, many of our young people should become the unconscious dupes of Baptist proselytizers who are ever eager to take advantage of innocent icnorance." The nearlv 3,000,000 Baptist church mem* bers of America should surely feel abashed before the honied sweetness of the author of this pamphlet! If he can afford to make such general charges we certainly can afford to have him do so. This pamphlet asserts that nine-tenths of Christendom are against the immersion views of the Baptists. How much truth is there in this oft-repeated statement? Even the author of this production must know that the Greek church, number'ng 70,000,000, always has and does still, practice immorsion. The Homan Catholic church, while it practices sprinkling, assc i'ts that immersion was the original baptism and bases sprinkling upon the authority of the church. So they are with us in the view that baptism was originally an immersion, and this church num. bers 150,000,000. There are also as many, at least, as 6,000,000 Baptist adherents. These sum up 220,000,000. Even if we should include the Episcopalians, who, by their liturgy, declare that pouring and sprinkling are allowable only when the child is unable to be immersed, as against our view, there are only about 70,000,000, all told, who profess to believe that sprinkling or pour was never a form of baptism originally. So much for this statement. 6 .1! This pamphlet states that the Baptist theory casts out as heathen men and publicans all who have not been immersed, and treats all such as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and hands them over to the •' uncovenanted mercies of God.' So far as the last expression 's concerned the Presbyterian and other churches may maintain that there is no covenant mercy to any but the baptized, but we are happy to state that Baptists have ever rejected such an idea with abhorrence. If he were not 80 desirious of arousing prejudice against the author he would not have used such words as the fore-going and others of a similar bitter character, against strict communion ; for he must know that Presbyterians are as strict as we, admitting none to the Supper but such as they deem baptized. The following quotation from R. Hall will show that the stinging words which Mr. McKay quotes as referring to us alone, were meant for oth^r denomina- tions likewise. "They," (Baptists), says Mr. H., '' act precisely on the same principle with .all other Christians, who assume it for granted that baptism is an essential preliminary to the reception of the Sacrament. • • * The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule and" silence the clamoiir of those who condemn Baptists for a proceoding which, were they but to change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own princi- ples would compel them to adopt." Vol. Ill, p. 349,350. Candid and manly Presbyterians like Dr. Patton and Dr. J. X. Hall are admitting this, and are urging that Baptists, instead of being held up to orprobrium because of their strict communion, deserve the admiration of their brethren for consistent adherence to a prin- ciple which is common to Presbyterians and them. But these are broad souled magnanimous men. We quote Dr. Hall's words, "There is a tendency to heap censure on the Baptists in this country because of the views generally held and acted upon regarding the Lord's Supper. Restricted communion is being assailed by many in the interests of catholicity. It is a course of val| thi br( Ubj ma| br( arei as 1| ihi thi asks out as 1 immersed, kh of Israel es of God.' yterian and It morcy to It Baptists e were not 'le woul.j >f a similar >ust know "G to the quotation r. McKay enomina- preoisely me it for pception of this of those y hut to prinoi- Candid all are igheld ve the * prin- >se are ^ords, 1 this upon beinff 'se of doubtful catholicity to raise a popular outcry a^'ainst a most valuable body of people who honestly d«?fend and consistently go through with what they deem an important principle.'' *' Our love for the brethren should surely include the Baptist brethren. And it is doubtful if. considering the len/^ths to which liberal ideas have been carried in this country, there be not some gain to the community as a whole, from a large denomination making a stand at a particular point, and reminding their brethren that there are church matters which we are not bound? are not even at liberty to settle according to the popular demand' as we would settle the route of a railroad." In proceeding with the chief part of our work we may not follovr the^order ofH,heJpamphlet which we review, but we shall notice all that is worth the trouble, considerable, peihaps, that is not. And first let us glance at one or two positions taken by our opponents. The most argue that baptism can be performed either by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Such an idea appears to me unthinkable. This ordinance is to symbolize a definite thing — regeneration, as admitted by Mr. McK; by whicft old things paws away and all things become new — and to serve a derinite purpose. Now can it be conceived, by any effort of imagination, that such dissimilar acts as these can possibly repro sent with equal clearness this change, or equally serve any definite and single purpose. Neither can it be supposed that the All-wise would enjoin or permit any oth r than the most adequate symbol to show forth this change, muchless that he would permit two or three, some less and some more adequate. In all the Bible there can be found no such instance. In every case (Jod enjoins the one symbol which seems best to hirj and then woe be to the man who through rashness or self sufficiency tampers with it. Neither can 1 suppose that, when God commands us to observe one symbol, he will permit us to substitute for it somo- thing else which we deem more convenient or suitable. It is self-evident that no change can be made in a symbolic ordinance without injuring its expressiveness and neutralizing to some extent the divine purpose in it. So baptism must be one thing, not one of two or many. If it is immersion it is not sprinkling. If it may be sprinkling it cannot be immersion. The first help in discovering what baptism is, is the meaning of THE GREEK WORD BAPTIZO, which is used in the New Testament to enjoin and describe it. It will save confusion if we remember that we have to do with its literal meaning, since Christian baptism is a literal material act. With its figurative meanings we have nothing directly to do. Let us examine this pamphlet then, on this point. The author's first appeal is to , THE TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICOGRAPHERS. f. : ' He asserts that they are " all arrayed against the Baptist posi- tion,"' for proof he makes this declaration, " Even the great Baptist controversialist \^Car3on) acknowledges this ; for having said that the word baptize always signifies to dip, he adds, " As I have all the Lexicographers and Commentators against me.'' As these words of Dr. Carson have often been wrested from their connection and used in the most unscrupulous way, explanation is needed. The facts are these, Dr. Carson, in the connection in which these words stand, expressly says that " there is the most complete harmony among them (Lexicographers) in representing dip as the primary meaning of bapto and baptizo, and adds " Ac- cordingly Baptist writers have always appealed with the greatest confidence to the Lexicons even of Pedobaptisl; writers. On the contrary, their opponents often take refuge in a supposed sacred or spiritual use, that they may be screened from the fire of the Lexicons." Still further, he declares, "Nor is it with real sec* ondarl taken! what he dii can H£ this dl »» Eacj other Carsoi ^c.bj where hapth stanc tweer ingof Now i the 01 statei accort welco niersi feide, Comr ranee to sh to th then is tri wast men eics, cone bett Lex ordinance to some one thing, Jpiinkling. © meaning ribe it. It o with its terial act. ' do. Let hor's first )ti8t posi- he great >r having ds, " As 1 aie. ' As om their nation is Jction in ^he most esenting Ids "Ac- greatest On the acred or ? of the eal sec- -9 ondary meanings that they (Lexicographers) are likely to be mis- taken, their peculiar error is in giving, as secondary meanings what are not probably meanings at all." To illustrate wherein he differs from the Lexicographers, he uses this illustration. We can say dip the bread in wine, or moisten the bread in wine, yet this does not import that dip means to moisten or moisten to dip, '' Each of the words has its own peculiar meaning which the other does not posses." The exact point, then, at issue between Carson and the Lexicographers is this, because an object is washed Sec. by dipping in water, they give wash as a meaning of bapiizo whereas Carson contends that wash is not a meaning of the word bapiizo, but only the result of its action under certain circum- stances. About the act in baptism there is no controversy be- tween them and Carson ; for although they giye wash as a mean- ing of bapiizo, it is always a wasbmg by an immersion in water. Now as the act of baptism is all that concerns us in reference to the ordinance of baptism, we see how much truth there is in the statement that Lexicographers are against the Baptist position according to Carson. Under these circumstances, Mr. McKay is welcome to the triumph with wiiich he exclaims, " On the im- mersionist side of this question we have Dr. Carson, on the other feide, even as acknowledged, we have all the Lexicographers and Commentators of the world ;" for if his elation is not due to igno- rance and carelessness, it arises from what is worse. His attempt to show that the Lexicographers are against us by direct reference to them is equally fitted to mislead. He states that certain of them give to bapiizo three meanings dip, wash and cleanse, which is true of some ofthem, although not of all. He then declares, since washing and cleansing may be done in other ways then by im- mersing an object in the cleansing element, baptism, in the clas- sics, is not alway.^ an immersion. The false impression which the concealed sophistry of this statement is liable to make cannot be better corrected than by quoting the definitions of two of the Lexicographers to whom he refers. it! 10 i^chlemner '^ bapHzo/' Properly to immerse and dip in, to iijmerse in water, from bapio : and it answers to the Hebrew /aZ/ttZ, 2 Kings 5:14. Also, because not vnjrequenfh/, something is wont to be Immersed and dipped into water that it might be washed, hence it denotes to perform ablution, to wash o/f, to cleanse in water. Scapula, " baptizo. To dip, plunge into, plu.ige under, to overwhelm in wrter, wash off', cleanse, as when we immerse anythinf/ in water for the sake of coloring or washing ity Also, Alstedius. To immerse, and not to wash excejit by consequence. The Lexicographers then, say that baptizo means to wasli, only in so far as tne washing is done by immersion. Mr. McKay quietly assumes, because I aptism is sometimes a wasliing, that washing is always a baptism, however done. Mis reasoning, put into a syllogism, is ; to bnptize is to wash, to pour is to wash, therefore baptism i a pouring- as transparent a fallacy as can be, as can be seen by the following : To burn is to destroy, to drown is to destroy, therefore to burn is to drown, or perhaps this, Mr. McKay is an animal, ^n ass is an animal, therefore. * * Until he tin«]s a case where any washing is callec" a baptism.pxcept a washing by immersing the ol^ject washed, he must drop this .point, or a<^cept the consequences of his own metliods ot reasoii ing. As Pedo Baptist scliolai's have been seeking for years to lind any jiassage where anytliing bui an immersion is termed a baptism, and have failed, we do not anticipate that he will succeed, even though he thinks that they know little, about (lipping, compared witli himself But, the reader may reply, is it not asserted in this pamphlet that in Greek writings we have the following expressions : *' Baptizing — J, the grass with dew "' — 2, " a garment with needle- work ' — 3, " a wall with arrows ' — 4, ''the head with perfume "' — .'), " the sea with the blood of a mouse " — G, " a rock with the blood of a stag '— 7, ** plants by pouring ,or sprinkling water on tlip in, to he Hebrew 'omething is t be washe.d, se in water. un<ler, to sc. anythiiKf except hy wash, only >. Mo Kay iiinir, that onin^', put i to wash, as can be, » to drown this, Mr. Until pxcept a rop this reasoi. j ears to ernied a he will e about iiiiphlet issions : needle- irne '' — ith the atRr on « 11 them '"—8, "an altar by pouring water upon if— 9, "a man (Nebuchadnezzar) with the dew of heaven "—10, **the sea shore by the advancing tide" — 1 1, " the ashes of purification by water poured upon them "' — 12, " persons while reclining on their couch "—13, " with tears ? ' On this list purporting to give instances of the use of baptizo, the only word used to describe the rite of baptism, we remark, J, As the author has not reterred us to the works where these passages occur, we cannot identify them all. 2, Ot the passages we can identify, 2, 5 and 9, Have hajtto a word never used to de- scribe baptism and not baptizo, the word whose usage Mr. McEjiy purports to givs in this list ! ! 3, So far as I can learn, only 8, 10, 11.12 and 13 contain baptizo and hence these only can be used honestly to prove his point. 4, On these I remark, No. 8 refers to the flooding of the wood on the altar by command of Elijah ! Kings 18 : 33 — and expresses strongly Origen's idea of the completeness of the deluging — as though it had been immersed^ Is not the sea shore buried beneath the flowing tide — and so immersed ? The case of the baptism of the ashes of purification is not described as by pouring water upon them, but by putting them into the water. Jos. Antiqu. IV, 4:() The baptism of persons while reclining on a couch, refers to the laving of the hands It was a baptism ol the hanils only. See Clement of Alex. Stromat, Lib. 4 How much the baptism of tears helps sprinkling may be learned from the following quotation, from Gr'»g. Nazienzen, ''Yea, 1 know a tilth baptism — that of tears ; but it is still more difficult, because it is necessary to wet one's couch every night with tears." But he adds again, *' How many tears can equal the flood oftlie baptismal bath.''' Oratio. 39,7 and 00,9. So much for these passages. 5, On the remaining passages which have not been identified, we remark, Dr. Dale from whose works he purports to quote them, states of Dr. Conanl's Baptizeins,(see Classic Bap. p. 02,) that it is an "accurate exiiibition of all passages in which m ^ I 1 12 0 baptizo is found." These passages are not in Dr. Conant's work and so cannot bo in Dr. Dale's, who admits that there are none beside. How can we explain this. Probably thus, that in these remaining cases, just as in Nos. 2, 5, 9, Mr. McKay gives us passages which have bapio, and not baptizo, while he expressly declares that these are instances of the use of baptko. If he has done this ignorantly, he had better abate from his high assumption ot superiority to Pedo-Baptist scholars whose reputation is world wide. If he has done it wilfully in order to carry a point which 4ie could not carry otherwise, then I had sooner not characterize the act, on the part of one who is avowedly seeking to advance the truth. Yet this is rot the first time that such a deed has been done. Is it necessary to follow him as he tries to make it appear that baptizo cannot always mean to immerse, because Dr. Conant, even, takes seven words to express its meaning m different cases of its use ? Has he ever beard of synonymous words ? Had he given the words used by Dr. Conant, viz : dip, immerse, immerge, merge, submerge, plunge in, whelm and overwhelin, anv reader would have seen that they all convey the one meaning of cover- 1 iug in an element, which is all that Baptists now claim. Need I add that the last two meanings are in cases of its fig'irative use, as whelm in trouble, where the idea of direction of motion is ruled out. Mr McKay accepts the statement of Mr. Gallaher, that excellent classical scholar ; that " in every instance " quoted by Dr. Conant, " The baptizing element or instrumentality is moved and put upon the person or thing baptized, never is the person put into the element.'' The " classical scholarship 'of both Mr. Gallaher and his endorser can be seen from the following cases, two out of a score or two of similar instances cited by Dr. Conant, No. 16 : " Continually pressing down and immersing him while swimming;" No 17, "Being baptized by the Gauls in a swimming bath he dies.' But why proceed further ? Even Dr. Jul onant's work lere are none that in these s us passages declares that is clone this sumption ot on is world point which characterize ; to advance a deed has appear that Br. Con ant, Perent cases 1? Had he 3, immerse, finv reader of cover- Need I rative use, motion is Gallaher, *" quoted ntality is f ver is the rship ' of following cited by amersing Oauls in Even Dr. 13 Dale himself, who is the latest and most voluminous writer on the Pedo baptist side, staters that " an object baptized is com- pletely invested by the baptizing element," Classic Bap. p. 129. Dr Stuart, the great Andover professor, after an elaborate treatment of the subject, says, "Baptism" p. 51, Baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All Lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed m this." John Calvin declares, " The word baptize means to immerse." Just. 4: 15, 19. And so we might quote from scores. I may say here I am not concerned to defend Dr. Carson in his idea that in baptism the object is always put Into the element. It is enough for us that the object is always buried in or by the element. Nor do Baptists hold that baptizo means both to put into and to take out of the baptizing element. They claim that it requires an immersion, not an emersion as well, and it is in this .sense that dip is used by Dr. Carson, although it may popu- larly have another meaning. The word baptizo will compel us to bury the candidate for baptism in water, while it is left to common sense, the prepositions and the descriptions of the recorded baptisms to take him out again. Thus we have followed this pamphlet, while it has sought to prove even a single instance of baptism, other than by immersion either on the authority of a lexicon or by appeal to an author, and the author lias failed, although to one who was unable to follow his sleight of hand he may appear to succeed. And he could but fail when such men as C'>nant, Dale, Stuart, Wilson, &c., with their vast learning and research nad not succeeded. But even though one or two instances of sprinkling had been found out of hundreds of the meaning to immerse, unless baptism may b^ in more forms than one, it will undoubt- edly be according to the general usage of the word. Mr. McKay, finally, shields himself behind a supposed sacred use " to screen himself from the hre of the lexicons." But this is in vain. 14 ^ No word takes on a new meaning in the Bible to express a religious idea unless there is no word already in common use in the language to express that meaning. This is so in accord with fact and common sense that it needs no proof. Why make one word mean two things in order to have two words to express the same thing ? Were there not words in the language to express every meaning which men have ever supposQ^ baptism to signify? If it was a sprinkling rantizo wan ready for use, which never had any other meaning. Why then give a word which never meant anything but immerse the meaning sprinkle, and ignore the word which the people ever knew to mean sprinkle ? And so of pour and purify. There were tie words C/ieo. Kafharize, which ex- pressed these ideas. Why then change the meaning of baptizo into a signification it never had, thus confusing the people. an<l leading to misapprehension, while these words stood rea<ly ? The figment of a sacred use of baptizo meaning to sprinkle, &c , is but the desperate clinging of a drowning cause to a straw. If the word baptizo used to enjoin and describe the ordinance meant, in the language used by the people, to immerse, as we have iound that it did, then, common sense would say that they were immersed when baptized. But we have subsidiary evidence, of the strongest kind, in the testimony of 1 of I llil Cb of I spl iiei .^^.j CHURCH HISTORY. Let me^ere firs* dispose of the alleged discovery of Mr. McKay that immersion is an offspring of the church of Rome,— discovery 1 say, for of all the church historians who have ever written, and many of them cherished anything but the kindliest feelings toward Baptists, no one has ever made such a statement. Many men too have written against our view of baptism, but no one, so lar as 1 know has had the hardihood to make such an absurvl assertion express a on use in 50 rd with luike ono 5i'e88 the express si<jni fy? iver had r meant he word ' of pour lich ex- baptizo 3le. and y ? 'i'lie , is but If the meant, ' iound were in the cKay 3 very , and lings Tanv e, so surd • 'lo <Jne fact only needle mentioned to make its absurdity patent. 1 give it in the words of Dr. Wall, the groat PedoBaptist historian of infant baptism, so that it may not be suspected. lie says History Infant Baptism Vol. II, p. 414. "All those nations of Christians that do now, or formerly diil, submit to the authority of the Bishop of IJomo, do ordinarily baptize their infants by sprinkling or pouring. But all other Christians in the world, vfhM, never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants m the ordinary use." This fact thus stated can be ques- tioned only by such as are too ignorant to know better. Well then, does it appear conceivable that immersion is from Rome, when Home and those who have been subject to Home are the very ones, and the only ones, who have rejected it, ^hde ail those who have never submitted to her, have never practiced it, and they only have always done so We will deal with his alleged proof, after we have stated the facts. They are these : In the Epistle of Barnabas, attributed by many to the com- panion of Paul, and so ancient that it was esteemed canonical by some in the earliest tim*^?, and included in some of the earliest MSS of tlie New Testament, we Hnd these references to ba[)tism : — " Blessed are t loy who, plaoing their trust in the cross, have (/one down into the water " anl '• We desciud into the water full of sins, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, char, XI. Hermes, writing about A.D. 95, prior to John's tleath, perhaps, describes the Apostles as having gone ^^ da^ into the wafer''' with those they baptized and " come up ai/aiii.' — Shepherd. Justin Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 140, speaks of the baptized as " washed " in the name of the Trinity, and as obtain ing forgiveness of sins " in the watcr^ Apology 79, 85, 86, and again in bis Dialogue with a Jew, chap, xiv, he exclaims, " For what is t'le benefit of that baptism which makes bright thejiesh 16 and body only? Bo baptizerl Cs to the*oul from anger, «tc." Tertullian, A.D. 204. The candidate is let down into the water, and with a few words said, i.s dipped," De Bapt. ch. 2, with several other passages to the same effect. Hippolytus, A.D. 225, speaking of our Lord's baptism, says, *' How was the boundless river which makes glad the city of God, iHtht/ied in a little water ; the incomprehensible fountain that sends forth life to all men, and has no end, covered by scanty and iran- sftory waiersy Discourse on Theophany, II. TMre is as yet not the remotest hint of sprinkling or pouring as baptism. But it was about to appear. The idea began to prevail that no one could be sayed unless baptized. Hence when men were threatened with death they sought baptism, fearing lest they should be lost if they died without it. But as many of them were too ill to be immersed, water was poured or sprinkled upon them as a substitute. The first recorded instance of such a baptism is that of iSovaiian, A.D. 200. The following facts about this case speak volumes: — 1, Eusebius who wrote a ciiurch history less than a century after quotes from a letter of Cornelius, a bishop contimporary with Novatian, the following words : " He (Novaliau; fell into a grievous distemper and it beinji supposed tliat he would die immediately he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on tne bed nrhereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism. Eccles Hist. B 6, ch XLIII 2, One Magnus enquires oLCyprian who lived at the time and was the great leader of the X. African church " lohether they ivho are baptized in bed, as Novatian was, must be rebaptized if they recover.'^ Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. II p. 387. 3, Cyprian in his reply, wiih gt-eat diffidence, replies : " In the sacrament of salvation (baptism), where necessity compels, and Go I gives permission, the divine thing though outwardly abridged besi lea^ perl ;jo,] spri mo<J not] imi anger, «S:r." ^n into the • ch. 2, with 5tism, says, JityofGofi, that sends Uj and trail- ])oiirinff (IS 1 to prevail when men 'aring lest 3 many of sprinkled is that of ase speak a century imporary ell into a ^ouM die ith water Eccles iime and ^hei/ IV ho i if then "In the md God ihvidged 17 I bestows all that it implies on the faithful.'' Neander ch., Hist. I, p. 310. 4, Persons who were thus sprinkled upon their bed partly, at least from the supposed inadequacy of such baptism, were not permitted to hold any office in the church. Kurtz ch., Hist. I, ;jO,1 and 45,2. The Edinburg Encyclopedia gives the further history of sprinkling as follows: '' The first law to sanction aspersion as a' mode of baptism was by Pope Stephen, II, A.D. 753. But it was not till the year 1311 that a council held at Ravenna declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent, &c," The reader can now iudge whether it is immersion which is the offspnng of Rome, and associated with baptismal regeneration. 1 may add that not a tithe of the evidence for immersion from the Fathers has been presented, as there are scores of references to baptism as such in those who wrote in the first four centuries while there has not been produced a single undoubted reference, to sprinkling from any of them. It is no wonder then that all church historians that have ever expressed themselves on the subject, Pedo-Baptists though they all are, unanimously declare that the original baptism was by immersion. Let us quote from a few of ihem. Dean Stanley, one of the first scholars of the age, Art on Baptism " For the first thirteen centuries the almost unanimous practice of Baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word '• baptize '* — that those who were baptized were plunged sub- merged, immersed into the water. • • • • Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in the rare cases of death beds or extreme necessity) as no baptism at all." P. Schaff, probably the greatest living Presbyterian scholar, editor of Lan^je's commentary «&c., in his History of the Apostolic Church, p. 568.savs : — f ^ 18 '• Finally, as to the outward mode of administering this ordi- uance, immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original normal form, This is shown by the very meaning of the *ireek words Baptizo, Baptisma, Baptisnio;, used to designate the rite. Then agam by the analogy of (he baptism of John, which was performed in the Jordan (en) Matt. 3:f , comp IG, also eis ton Jordanen, Mark. 1:9.) Furthermore by the New Testament com parisons of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea (1 Cor^ 10:2) with the flood (1 Pet. 3:21; with a bath, Eph. 5:26, Tit. 3:.'). with a burial and resurrection, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. Finally by the general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity, (as it is to this day in the Oriental and also the GraecoRussian Church) pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and approaching death. Neander, the prince of church historians, says : — •' In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original institution, and the orginal import of the symbol performed by immersion. • • * It was only with the sick when the exigency required it that any exception was made, and in this case baptism was administered by sprinkling." C'h, Hist J p, 310. Giessler. Ch. Hist. 1, p 277, sec 71. " The condition of catechumens continued several years; but the catechumens often deferred even baptism as long as possible on account of the remission of sins by which it was to be accom panied. Hence it was often necessary to baptize tae sick, «/m! for them the rife oj sprinkling was introduced.'''' In view of this, how pitiful is the puny attempt of this pamphlet, or any other for thai matter, to obscure the plain facts of history, and how proUigiously absurd ^is the swelling air of superiority assumed by an unknown village preacher of Ontario' when he patronizingly alludes to these and scores more of such men of world wide celebrity for scholarship, as " knowing little andl the] ba] is c| »g this ordi- ionably the tning of the ?8ignate the ^ohn, which also eis (ou iraent com 'Sea (I Cor, 26, Tit. ?,-.:>[ uity, (as it in Church) ' o^ ur<'ent mit}'- vvitli le syiuhol » the sick- lade, atul Ch. riist ?ar3,' but possible ^ accom 3ick, and of this lin facts ? air of Ontario' of such ig little 1» and caring less about " dipping," because they are compelled by the force of facts to concede that immersion was the original baptism. But Mr. McKay's attempt is worse than pitiful. Although it is disagreeable work, some things must be exposed. He says, ' The very first distinct mention of dipping as a mode of bnptism is by TertuUian, who lived about the beginning ot the third century," (he was born the middle of the second, by the way). Why clid he not add that sprinkling is not mentioned until a half century later, and then it is to question it ? He seems to have put it so purposely, to leave the impret jion that immersion was an innovation, and sprinkling was of the higher antiquity. Again the seeks to discredit dipping, because it was threefold until the 17th century. '• Those who did not dip three times did not dip at all.'' Why did he not add also that, during the same time, all who sprinkled, sprinkled three times also? Such a resort to half trutlis which teAch a lie, is des[)icable, if it is through any other cause tlian ignorance, and then it is blameworthy ; for no one should make assertions when ignorant. Again TertuUian is said to have inclut^ed "dipping ' among he observances " based on tni lition " and destitute of scriptural authority.'' He does no such thing, for these are his words in hts treatise, *' Against Praxeas ch. 26, speaking of the Saviour's command. Matt 2S:1'J he declares " And last of all, commanding that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' As to his assumption, because immersion is mentioned in con- nection with " Romish practices " b^U'ertullian, that therefore mniersioM is Romish it is simply ridil^)us. 'TertuUian, mentions the doctrine of the 'Trinity in connection with them also. Is it also Romish ? Because there is some falsehood in a writing, does it follow that it is all falsehood ? We may mention, also, that TertuUian is likewise the first writer who distinctly refers to infant baptism, and it is to condemn it. But enough. 20 Mr. McKay's attempt to cast the stigma of being Romish upon immersion on such grounds, especially in view of the fact.-* about the incoming and prevalence of sprinkling, is an outrage. Besides, he is in a dilemma. He professes to believe that immersion is unscriptural and Romish, and yet he has received a member mto his church upon just such an unscriptural Romish rite, and. Pres- byterian and all other churches receive the immersed, and seem only too glad to get them. Many of the ministers of all otht;r denominations will immerse candidates for baptism, if immersion is insisted on. Why does Mr. McKay not enter upon a crusade agamst such countenancing of what is Romish in his own churoli and in his own practice? Why does he give all his attention to us? Or does he think that by gaining a member to his church from ours, there is a sufficient justification for countenancing what is Romish, and violating principle and truth ? Consistency IS a jewel. We have found then thus far, that the word haptizo which is used to describe the ordinance of baptism, has always meant to immerse. AVhile this of itself affords the strongest evidence that baptism was an immersion ; for our Saviour in using it to enjoin the ordinance, would undoubtedly u.se it in the sense in which it was universally accepted, we have in harmony with this idea, and establishing it beyond question, the practice of the Church from the earliest times — within half a century of the apostles them selves. Lot us add to this the fact that when sprinkling was first mentioned within a century and a half of the apostles, it is to deny its validity as baptism except in cases of extreme necessity and even then as renderij^fcthe candidate su*'ject to di-sabilities, and where is there the i?ossibility of doubt that baptism was originally an immersion ? Those who nevertheless hold that baptism was by affusion will have to make two astounding assumi)tions. Although there were words in common use in the language to express sprinkle, pour, ; Romish upon i« facU about fige. Besides, immersion ig member into e, and. Pres- et and seem of all other r immersion 'n a crusade own church attention to ' bis church ntenancinxr /Onsistency ■'O which is s meant to dence that ^ to enjoin n which it ' idea, and urch from les them I was first s, it is to necessity ^abilities, tism was sion will ere were Jt'; pour, 21 wash, bathe, purify, ttc. and which had no other meaning, yet our Lord chose a word which always meant to immerse, and never to sprinkle «kc., to express the sprinkling ka , which these other words always meant, rather than either of these words themselves. The original baptism was a sprinkling and not an immersion. Yet we never hear it referred to as a sprinkling but always as an immersion from forty years after the apostles for centuries, while this original baptism by sprinkling ha<l become so forgotten bv the church within a century and a half of the apostles, that when it began again to be practiced, its validity was conceded only in cases of necessity where immersion could not be practiced. Vrt some are prepared to go even this length, rather than abandon a hereditary belief. What does the reader iOnclu le to do? We join issue with this pamphlet iinally, on the TKACIIIN'O OF SCRIPTUKK On the question'of the mode of baptism. We shall Hrst follow hiui as he attempts to show that in certain instances baptism was by sprinkling. kaaman's skvknfold baptism, 2 KiNos, 5:10 — 14, is not a sevenfold dipping as our Bible says but a 'venfold sprinkling This is the way he makes this appear, '' How (was he baptized) ? Certainly not by a physical washing in the river, but by symbolic sprinkling ; for he did it according to the saying or command of the man ot God And the man of God would com- mand him to do what the law of God prescribeil. this was sprinkling seven times; Lev. 14:7." J^t us see. IfElisha would have commanded what the law prescribed, it must have been that Naaman's was an instance of the case for whom the ritual of Lev. 14 was provided ; for Elisha had too much reverence for the law to prescribe its solemn cere- m I ! '1 '1 • I 22 monies for any tliun those for whom the ritual itself was given But Nrtaaiati's was not an instance of such a case The ritual of Lev. J 4 was for lepers already cured, to declare that they had been healed. Lev. 14:3. Naaraan was still diseased and Elisha enjoined whai was miraculously to cure him, 2 Kings .kIO, 11 So much for this assertion. Again if Elisha commanded him Jo conform to, the ritual of Lev. 14, he did so conform ; for he obeyed him But he did not thus conform, even though he obeyed a command to wash, by sprinkling himself. In Lev 14, there is to be an examination by a priest, a bird killed, its blood mixed with water, wood and scarlet an.l hyssop dipped therein, this mixture sprinkled upon him by a priest, washing of clothes, shaving and hatlung, to be followed by sacrihces, <fec,, for eight days. And yet, in order to get m the sprinkling which is so <lesperately in need of help, men would iDiikti it appear that if Xaamaii sprinkled //-//rt.>«'^{/' seven times in Jordat) water and tiien pro(!e«(led on his w.ty. he went through the whoUi long rituul oi' ibis ciiapter. But it uui?.t lie so : for has not ■Iv. McK, himself usssuii'd us that he " knows what h»^ *.ays," having ''carefully examined every passage in the (Jld Tes- tament and the New relating ti baptism." It would be most lukind to question it when he takes the trouble to tell us so him- belf Did he think that if lie let jjis work speak for him people miyht doubt / Following others, this pamphlet makes on; l,Oi:i)'s BAPTISM ',! •.•^#•«.«J|.' bis i;onsecijit!on u> the priesthood He ridicules the idea that our ij.iril s hajitism \va,> us an example. " If Chrii.t v.as baptized lis an example, why," !ie exjlaiins " Do not Baptists follow his example and that in evfry point. ' Why are they not baptizeil at 30? Wliy are they n<H circumcised ? Why do they not keep the Jew sli Passovor and Sabbath. &:c ? What logic ! ! If Christ is an el in al| his i not Chril the enjoi USSU] hooq of wi 29:4,1 does! ?lf was given The ritual of fifit they had I and Elisha ngs '3:10,11. he ritual of t he did not to wash, by niination hv » wood and ikled upon nng, to be in order to ' help, men I'-'elf .seven »ij»t l>e so; V8 what he J Old Tes- I'e rno.st Js so him- in people <Jea tiiiit i'aptized )I]ow his >apti2pd iOt keep ^'iirist is 23 an example in one thing he must be in all then. But he was not in all, according to Mr. McKay, therefore he was not in any, and his reasoning leads to two opposite conclusions. But we need not discuss the point whether his baptism was, in all respects, Christian or not. We are concerned in this discussion only with the mode ot baptism and all admit that its form was the same enjoined upon believers generally. But how, even on the assumption that his baptism was his consecration to the priest- hood, does he gel in sprinkling? Knowing that there was no use of water but as a washltuj in the consecration of the priests Ex. 29:4, which was too near an immersion to serve his purpose, what does he do but declare that our Lord was consecrated to the priesthood by the ritual for the consecration of the Levites^ Num. S:7, and so had the water of purifyin^^ sprinkled upon him In the name ot all that is sacred I protest, against such handling of the word of God. But let us sift this matter further. Di 1 it ever occur tD those who thus seek to pervert our Lord's baptism that he did not belong to the tribe of Levi, but to that of Judah, '•of which tribe Moses spake nolhin;: concerning priesthood,"' Ileb. 7:14? But some would retort, but he was a priest after the order of Melchisedick. This i.-, true, but it is argued in Heb. 7 that the Mosaic priesthood and that of Melchisedec are so completely distinguished that, v. 7, '• the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change in the law "' whereas this performance argues that the new priesthood must subject itself to the ritual of^the old law. Fine reasoning truly. But again, to make it appear that our Lord received this con- secration to the priesthool, it must be assumed that John was performing on men, at Bethabara, the iitual ot the Mosaic law Xow I read of the consecration both of priests and J^evites, Ex« 29:4, Num. 8:5—13, that it took place at the door of the taber- nacle, if there were any consecration other than this general one. fhey were to wash and 8have au'i otfjr sacrifices, and robe, and i'^i 24 all this to be repeated for seven days, while the candidaies remained secluded in the holy solemnity of the sanctuary. And yet Mr. McK, and others, in order to bring in their beloved sprinkling, and rule out the hated immersion, do not hesitate lo declare the simple rite performed by John identical with thi.-< X>rolonged ceremonial. To what audacity of assumption will not men go, when they have no better reliance? Upon what depths of Ignorance in their readers do they not reckon ? THE BAPTISM OF THE EL'NUCH, ACTS S:3S, 39, 'l-.i*!;'?^ j^V is a plain case of sprinkling in Mr. McKay's eyes. Hear him, " If they (Baptists) will examine their Bibles they will see that the eunuch was on this occasion reading in the 52nd and 53rd chapters of Isaiah. And here it is predicted of Christ, among other things, that ' He shall sprinkle many nations ' (a passage which the best scholars, by the way, say should be rend:>red, * so shall he cause many nations to ^xult ') and the eunuch seeing water at once thinks he is one of tlmse he was ro s}>rink]e, ttc. Very conclusive surelv, quite specious, at least, liiit we have learned enough V>y tliis time to take nothing for granted because it is roundly declared in this pamphlet, an 1 others of a similar kind. Baptists do " examine their Bibles,' all the worse for such performances. Let us turn to Acts 8:32, it is there said that the eunuch was reading, " He was led as a lamb to the slaughter," &c. not Isaiah 52: 1 5, but 53:7, Thus again the boasted proof is an assertion contradicting the Bible. Under such circumstances it is hard to receive in all meekness the reprimand which intro- duces this piece of wresting of the scriptures, " Instead of ignor- antly dwelling upon unusual or false translations to prove their theory let me recommend immersionists to a better way, &c.'* May we not say, in all humility, that we do not wi>h to follow his wav. 25 e, itc. e have :>ecausf* similar or such lat the r," &c, is an nces it intro- ignor- e their , &c.'- follow THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT is becoming the chief dependence of the advocates of afFut^ion. Their argument appears quite plausible, on first sight. In this baptism the spirit is represented as coming down upon the baptized. The water baptism must conform to the spiritual therefore in physical baptism the element must cohie down upon the candidate, and the candidate not be put into the element,— ' baptism must be affusion, not immersion. Let us examine this argument somewhat closely. / ' ' 1, It assumes that there was a literal affusion of the spirit. If the language — the spirit was poured out &o. — be figurative, referring to the copiousness of the influence, and is said to descend only because of the representation of the Divine abode being above us, in heaven, then, as there can be no mode in the spirits manner of reaching men, there can be nothing in it to determine the mode of water baptism. Who can doubt as to this? Cananvone, on sober thought, believe that there is a literal material pouring out &c. of the Holy Sp'rit ? Is not the very men- tion ofsuch an idea shocking ? Besides, do we not believe that the spirit is omnipresent, aiid so does not require motion in any direction to exert his energy on the soul? So this argument crumbles away at the first touch. ' ' 2, But allowing this gross material conception in the realm of the purely spiritual, and still our opponents are not helped much unless the " pouring out " &c, are called the baptism. But it is not. Etren Robinson in his Lexicon, in the very article on baptizo in which he makes a special plea for sprinkling, declares that Matt. 3:11 should be "baptized in the Holy Ghost, 'and not "with the Holy Ghost," as in our version, and all candid scholars agree with him. Now, if we go to the record of the fulfilment of this promise, Acts 2: 1—4, we find it in perfect agreement with the meaning of the word baptizo, and the terms of the promise thus T rightly rendered. The audible accouapaniment of the spirit's presence and power *' fills the house where they are sitting," and *' they are filled with the Holy Ghost." Cyril, one of the ancient Fathers writing about A.D. 350, Cat. 17 Sec. 8 puts it well in his highly wrought way. " The house became the reservoir of the spiritual water.) the disciples were sitting within -, and the whole house was filled. They were therefore completely immersed, according to the promise. We might quote Theophylact, Neander, Moses .Stuart, Lange and others to the same effect, bui we forbear. 3, Again still allowing the idea that there was a literal material outpouring of the Spirit, it must further be established that water baptism is to declare the mode of the Spirit's coming upon the soul, before the fact of the Spirit's coming in a certain form will stamp the same form on water baptism. But even on this monstrous supposition, how could the manner of the Spirit's coming require to have something in an ordinance, or an ordinance itself to symbolize and show it forth ? Why should Orod take such pains to keep men in mind that the Spirit descends upon them and does not come in another way. The idea is simply unthinkable, and no one could have perpetrated such an argument as this, unless forced by the exigency of a preconceived 4, Finally the true symbolism of baptism destroys this argu- ment completely. Mr. McK. is right whfn he asserts that it symbolizes the Spirit's work of regeneration in the soul, although he makes a statement which is incorrect when he says that Baptists do not believe this, since they are the only people who hold this view consistently ; for in infant baptism this cannot be the symbolism, unless baptism first regenerates. Well then, if baptism symbolizes the work of the Spirit in the soul and this is undoubted, how can he make it show forth the mode of the Spirits coming wptm the soul. But oiakes 1 : 32, " dove." Vets 1 would I prevent So t :uonstr( materia the Spi: deep ar a work absurdi one of i We In tl he reac pleader fies the baptisn of such thus pr second , 0:18 to, sprinkli sprinkli passage necessi^ else wa punfica ;he spirit's tting," and be ancient well in hiti oir of the the .vhole immersed, eophylact, effect, but i1 material that water upon the I form will m on this ie Spirit's ce, or an 'hy should t descends ie idea is 3d such an scoDceived this argu- ts that it , although says that •eople who cannot be II then J if smd this is he Spirits But the idea that the dsncent of the Spirit is the baptism naakes the most arrant nonsense when applied to the passages, Jn. I ; 32, would re«*d, " I saw the Spirit baptizing from heaven, like a dove." Acts 2 : 17, " J will baptize of my Spirit upon all flesh.'' Acts 2 : 33, '• He has baptized this which ye now see <fec," which would make it appear that the element is the object baptized, and prevent the baptism of the people altogether. 8o this boavSted argument is found to be based upon such :uonstrou.s assumptions as that the Spirit is poured out in a material way, — that water baptism is to show forth the mode of the Spirits descent. JSco., thus emasculating from baptism all its deep and blessed import, — thus denying that it is a profession of a work of f»raoe in the soul, — and reducing referencee to it to an absurdity. Verily a practice is well supported which has this as one of its strongest arguments. ,,„|. ,. ., v,^ ' l/wi ■■ ^rt v>^ We come now to the ; Jir" -; .«'>'^f:.-.;" L-iil. DIVKRS nAITISSIS HRB. 9 r:n U'mU t%S In these Mr. McKay sees nothing but sprinklings. How does he reach this conclusion? Just as a number of other special pleaders have done. He boldly assumes that the apostle identi- fies the .sprinklings mentioned in vs. 13. 19.21, with these divers baptisms of v. 10, whereas the apostle gives not thv<» remotest hint of such a thing. Let the reader examine for himself. Having thus proved his first step by assuming it, he establishes the second in the san * way. Having quoted Lev. 19:13:20 and Heb, 0:13 to show that the essence oF the purification was in the sprinkling, he then asserts that '' God's word says that the sprinkling constituted the baptism." The most that these passages prove is that, in the cases specified, sprinkling was necessary to the purification. But it does not say that nothing else was essential to even these purifications, much less that all purifications were sprinklings. As well might we reason, because k ii r !i one man died because he had not his leg amputated that all men will also die unless they have theirs cut oflf. Two more assumpt- ions are needed, viz., that only purifications belong to these divers baptisms, and that only sprinklings are purifications, before he can prove that these baptisms were^not immersions. As they are needed, he makes them, and calls this proof I ! But although this argu^lent on careful dissection, resolves itself into a series of bald assumptions, it is frequently used ana is well fitted to impose on the careless — especially on those who are predisposed to accept it. We therefore propose to give it as exhaustive an examination as our space will permit. ; Let us first examine the passage itself to find its true meaning. :' ' First : the " divers baptisms " are called carnal ordinances, for the " and " of the clause, " divers baptisms and carnal ordi- nances," is without MSS. authority as all scholars admit. So the divers baptisms are restricted to such rites as pertain to men and to their outward persons, for " carnal " means " of the flesh." Second: the ordinances here referred to were to continue until the time of reformation — viz : until Christ should come. No rite then which did not continue to be observed until the end of the old economy can be included in these baptisms. Bearing these two facts in mind, let us turn to the Old Testament and question H as to the forms of personal purification which these baptisms may include. There are but five cases of personal sprinkling. At the ratification of the covenant, Ex. 24 18, — at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Ex. 29:21. Lev. 8 30, — of the Levites, Num. 8:7, — at the cleansing of lepers. Lev. 14 7j_of those defiled by contact with death. Num. 19:13—21. But the sprinkling of blood at the ratification of the covenant was never to be repeated. Neither was that of the water and ashes at the consecration of the Levites ; for it was a consecration of the whole tribe, once for all. Neither, probably, was that of the pi- th thi we spi anj ha mil lei the the use the be the 29 at all men ! assumpt- ese divers before he As they , resolves used ana those who give it as I its true dinancesi irnal ordi- L. So the » men and esh." continue lid come. 1 the end the Old rification cases of , Ex. 24: . Ley. 8: Lev. 14: 1. But lant was id ashes >ation of ,t of the priestly caste; tor it was ol the whole priestly class, through their haads (see Smith's Bib. Die. art. Priest.) These sprinklings then could not be referred to in the divers baptisms ; for they were not to continue until the time of reformation. Only two sprinklings remain then, which even might thus be referred to and one of these — that of the leper — probably did not occur per haps once in a generation, if it did so often ; for it was next to a miracle for a leper to be healed, and the rite was not to cure lepers, but to celebrate their healing. There was practically, then, but one sprinkling, of any frequency of recurrence, to which these baptisms could refer and is it likely that the apostle would use Ihe word " divers," did he refer to these sprinklings when there were only two cures, and one of these so unfrequent as to be scarcely worthy of notice. So much for the probability that the " diyers baptisms " refer to sprinklings. But were there any other personal purifications to which they might refer ? Yes, verily, although those who seek to have the reader see sprinkling through the '' divers baptisms " very pru- dently strive to keep them hidden. There are 40 specified cases where the clothes are to be washed, and 30 where the whole body of individuals is to be bathed or washed. So much care is taken to conceal these facts that we give the most of the passages so that the reader can see that they really exist. Washing of clothes. Leyiticus, 11: 25, 28, 40. Leviticus, 13 : 6, 34, 54. Lev. 14 : 8, 9, 47. Lev. 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27. Lev. 16 : 26, 28. Lev. 19 : 16. Num. 8 : 7. Num. 19 : 7, 10, 19. Num. 31 : 24 Washing oj the whole body. Lev. 14 : 8, 9. Lev. 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27. Lev. 16 : 4, 24, 26, 28. Lev. 17 : 15. Lev. 22: 6. Num. 19:7, 8,19. In addition to these there are bathings of the hands and feet. But were these bathings immersions ? When we consider the scrupulous exactness of the Jews in conforming to the ritual of so ; ! the law. and tuke into connection with this the fact that immersion of the body in water is the common eastern mode of taking a bath; can we doubt that those bathings were equivalent to immersions, if they were not immersions. But we have other evidence. Maimonides, the greatest and most learned of Jewish Rabbis, and who ought to know the customs of his own people, says : — '' Whenever, in the law, washing of the fle-ih or of oloihes i» mentioned, it means nothing else then the dipping of the whole body m water J for if any man wash himself all over except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleaness. Hilch. Micooat. 1 : 2. Dean Stanley says in his article on baptism, and from his life long researches in the history of the Jewish people, he should be an authority, ^' The plunge into the bath of purification, long known among the Jewish nation as a symbol of a change of life, wat* still continued, (in baptism)/' Let us sum up, on the one hand there are about fifty distinct cases of washing and bathmg which were, if not actuaj immersions, yet equivalent to immersions. The^iQ immersions were of frequent repetition aa^ong the most of the people until the end of life. On the other hand there is but one case of sprinkling of general and continuous use. The question then is, shall we suppose that the apostle designates this one case of sprinkling with the extraordinary case of the leper, " divers " baptisms^ thus using a word to describe them which never meant sprinkle in all its use, as all scholars admit. Or did he use this word "divers " of the thirty or fifty cases of bathing and wstshlng, and the word "baptisms" which always meant immersion of these wastiings and bathings, which were at least equivalent to immersions ? Did he use both the words with meanings which they never bore, or did he use them in the sense they ever had ? The reader can easily judge. And yet this is oae of the Ktrongest arguments against us. The reader can also judge o^ SI the learning of Mr. McKay, and the seemliness of his arrogant question, ^' Do not imtnersionists know that every cleansing or baptism under the law was by sprinkling ?" Not only so, but unmixed water was never used in any Old Testament sprinkling. The case of the Levites is no exception. Whenever water is used in the Old Testament it is as a bathing— at leagt the equivalent of immersion. If then John's baptism in proved to be a legal purification by John 3 : 25, it is all the worse for sprinkling; for his was the use of water only, and it must therefore have been an immersion. Our author makes the usual point of the shallow critics about the BAPTISM IX THB CLOUD AND IN TUB SEA, 1 COR. 10 : 2. " A man cannot be dipped or immersed on dry ground," he exclaims. Surely he is not so dull as to believe that there can be no immersion except in water, or any except a literal. The Israelites were surrounded by the sea and cloud, so as to be completely enveloped in them, just as in baptism one is envel- oped in the water. So far is this passage from doing duty against the Baptist view that Dr. SchaS in the quotation already made, gives the " comparison of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea," as a proof that scripture baptism was an immersion. Lange says '' The cloud is, in a measure, taken together with the water, as the element into which they entered, and wherein they became as it were submerged.''^ Had we space, we could quote Poole, Bengel, Whitby, Olshausen, Alford, Bloomfield, Moses Stuart, &c., to the same effect. Need we say more on this point ? His criticism on the washing (baptism) before meals, Luke 11 : 37, 38., is wonderful. He assumes roundly that the baptism of himself yihxch. the Pharisees expected of our Lord was a washing of the hands. He then assumes, because he finds two cases of washing the hands by pouring water on them, hundreds of ycftrs // i 82 before, that this was the invanaljlo pracLica an! so our Lord must have been expected to baptize hiintel/, by having some water poured upon hii hinds ! And so the exclusive immersion tlieory is but the baseless fabric of a dr<^a'n. .Surely immeraionisU are for ever demolished ! th;': KviTisM ok vi;s^i:ls avd tabi.ks, maiik 7 : 4, receives a share of attention. Ifo assumes, as is generally done' thai the rites here alluded to were all necessarily parts of the Mosaic ritual, and that the baptisms were therefore sprinklings. Now was he so hlin I as to fail to see that they are expressly said to belong to the traditions of the elders v. o., against which our law proceeds to speak, v 7, 8 ? This is just the point. The elders had gone beyond the law and hail imposed grievous and oner- ous observances on the people. What wise criticism then, to allege that tho?e traditional observances which had made the law of none effect, were the very re(|uirements of this law itself! ! So much for Mr. McK. Pedo baptist i eaders who have been accus- tomed to hear this passage held up as utterly inconsistent with the Baptist position will be surprised to know the little real diflf^lculty it presents The following will suffice to make this [>lain ; Maimonides, the great .levvish Rabbi already referred to, says, •' Every vessel of wood which is made for the use of man, as a table, tkc , receives defilement," and he adds, further on, " A bed that is wholly defiled, if be dip it part by part, it is pure. Hilch, '.'elim, Dr. Holley, a Congregationalist, in his great work on the .^acraments says : — '* [ cannot rely so confidently upon these baptisms of furniture as do many of my brethi en. * •' If any one will take the trouble to study the various pollutions of beds and couches, as they are described by Maimonides and the Talmudic tracts, tney must in candor admit that these articles of furniture were, in some inst beef con I prei del of tl 33 instances, immerse<l in water." '' I cannot deny that the Phari bees as early as the time of our Saviour practiced immersion after contact with the common people." But alas ! some men have not the knowledge or the candor to prevent them denying this, and so they act as though they had demolished our position ; while they have only made an exposure of their own ignorance. The critical note on v. 4 of th.j passage is a cariosity, instead of the Vatican, the sinaitic and seven other MSS, having ranti- aontai in this verse instead of baptisoatai. Alford and Tregelles give only the Vatican and one obscure MSS. as having ran//«on^at* (sprinkle). Mr. McK. states that because some MSS. thus give sprinkle and some baptize, sprinkle and baptize must be synony- mous ! ! Let us apply this newest canon to a case. In Jas. 2:18, some MS.S have '' by thy works,' others " without thy works." Mr. McK. then, must believe thai to be justiiied by works, and with- out works, are synonymous and equivalent. How easy it would be for him to bridge over the chasm between Calvinism and Arminianism ! The old objection that there was a scarcity of water in Jeru- salem to immerse the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost is brought forward again as though it had not been answered times without numl^er. We answer it again, the facts are taken from Dr. Kobinsin's Kesearches in Palestine, vol. 1, p. 480-515. Dr. R. was a staunch Pedo baptist. Jerusalem was watered by the following pools with the dimensions given below : — Length Breadth Depth 75 feet 19 " 18 " partly filled ' 40 feet '' But in addition to these " contmues Dr. R. " almost every private house in Jerusalem of any size, is understood to have at Bethesda, 360 130 Siloam, 53 18 Upper Pool, 316 218 Hecekiah, 240 144 Lower Pool, 592 260 7f Depth 12 feet 15 " 15 " 20 '• 34 east cftio or more cisterns. The house of Mr. Lanneau, in which we resided, had no less than four cisterns, and as these are but a specimen of the manner in which all the better class of houses are supplied. I subjoin here the dimensons." Length Breadth * I 15 8 II 8 4 III 10 10 IV 30 • n^ 30 1.1 ThesA public reservoirs were available. Dean Stanley who "^trAvelled in the East sa3's : "In that early age the scene of the transaction (baptism) was either or some vast reservoir, as at Jericho or Jerusalem, whither as in the Baths of Caracalla at Kome, the whole population resorted for swimming or washing '' and Dr. Hackett, also an Eastern traveller, says : "'I'he habits of the East, as every traveller knows, would present no obstacle to such a use of the public reservoirs." Besides we know from the New Testament that Siloam and Bethesda were so used ; for our Lord .commanded the blind man to wash in the Pool of Siloam, and the sick used to plunge into that of Bethesda, Jn. 9, 7, and 5 . 2. Neither would the populace have prevented them ; for Acts 2 : 47. They were " in favor with all the people.'' So much foi- this objection. Ot course Saul was baptized stand. ing, becau.se lie " arose and was baptized." Mr. McK. never knew that the expression '' arise '' is eiiiiivalont to '• get ready '" in the New Testament use, or, if lie did, it would spoil his point to mention it here. There is no doubt about the matter but that when Peter asks, Acts 10:47, "Can any man forbid wa»er " it means can any forbi<l "its being brought into tiie room" If a judge should sav, can any man forbid a gallows, that this mar) b»' hanged, it would mean that a gallows be brought into the court room and the man hanged there ! ! The baptism oT the Jailer i>< not said to be \n f/wjail, Acts IG : 32, 34, " They spake v. 32 to all that were in bis house, -these " were bfiiitiz-^"!, ^ v. 33. then the ion, i I 35 n which MB but a if houses 'eet nley who ne of the ipservoir, racalla at .vashing '" lie habits ) obstacle now from used ; for e Pool of les^la, Jn. )revente(l » people.*' erl staii'l- V. never t reurly '" lis point hut that fii*ev ■' it If a luarf bt' lie court Jailer i^ . :^2toall then the n jailer " brought them into his house," v. 34. They were in the house before baptism, they came back into it after baptism, and thus must have gone out to be b:iptized. So much tor these cases which ai-e thought inconsistent with immersion. As to the '' much water " of Jn 3 : 23, it we admit that it is literally " many waters," it will no less signify a large supply, according to New Testament usage. Let the reader turn to Rev. 1 : 15, 14 : 2, 17 : 1, 19 : G, the only other instances of its use there* in, and judge for himself. The Bible does not say that John chose Enon that there might be water for the animals, or to enable him and our I^rd to be near each other and not interfere. It merely says that John was Imptiziiuj there because of its much water or many w.it rs. Although we hear of multitudes thronging our Ixjrd in the - i and elsewhere, there is no mention of suf- fering from thirst. Our Ix)rd had never to work a miracle to sup- ply them with water, as he did to furnish them bread A very small spring would bo enough to afford water for thousands. So we had better not add to the scripture narrative any suppositions of our own. Jn. Calvin who says, Com, " From these words, Jn. o : 23, it may be inferred that baptism was administered by John and Christ by plunging the whole body under water," and Olshau- sen who declares that '' John was also baptizing in the neighbor* hood, because the water there affbrded convenience for immers- ion," and other Pedobaptist scholars we might name, are against Mr. McK. ; but these I suppose are among the ignorant people who •'* know nothing about dipping." The time worn objection that John could not have immersed "all Judoa and Jerusalem, <*:c," is made to do duty again. The most Pedo-baptist writers vho urge this, cannot feel justified in making the whole population of the district more than two or three millions, but Mr. McK makes it^t'e. In reply we remark : 1, Baptism by immersion can be administered as rapidly as by sprinkling, especially if we remember that the most ancient d'4 •a -fV manner was by the candidate going deep into or kneeling in the water and the administrator putting his hand on his head and howing it under the water, 2, We »re not told that Johi alone baptized. His disciples may have assisted him. The expression ' baptized of John '' being similar to^ " the ark was built by Noah. ' 3, Let the reader turn to Lu. 7 : 30. Mlatt 21 : 25 Jn 4 : 1 , 1:11, 3:23, and ho will see that Matt 3:5 cannot mean that all the people without exception were baptized of John, even if it nieahs that all without distinction were. It may mean no more than John 12 : 32. " And if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me " — that there went out to him many of all classes. Does Mr. McK. not know that in the hot lr»nd of Palestine. with the t lin clothing of the people, to be left with drippin;jr garments is more of a luxury than an inconvenience? Dr. Page Smith says " In Judea, during the larger part of the year, persona n ordinary health might plunge into the water and sit down in in their wet clothes with safety, and often with great comfort and pleasure. And now we come to what is called i*n " THE BURlAf. THEORY." 1 , Mr McKay holds that in Rom. 6:3, " Buried with 'him fcy baptism,' the burial is the result of the baptism, and is not the baptism itself, and as the spade which buries is not the burial, therefore here the baptism is not the burial. He has forgotten, however, that on p. 27 he declares that Dr. Dale has proved be- yond a question that the baptism is not act but an effect, nOw he says, in order to serve his present purpose, that baptism is hot effect but means. He abounds in points against us. First, we are demolished because a thing is so, and then again because that very thing is not so. But whichever way he chooses to oiake his point, it is useless here : for if the burial is the result of the baptism, it is a burial which is the result, and that is what is al- g in t1i<^ lead and iii alone pre's^ion built by Jn4:l, ,t all the it means »re than nto me " alestine. (Irippin;,: Dr. Page , persons , down in comfort him by not the |e burial, (rgotten, ►ved be- I, now he IS hot 'irst, we because I to make It of the lat is al* 3T ways elfected by immersion, and what is never secured by either sprinkling or pouring. Besides in Col. 2: 12 it is "byried with liim 77} baptism," not by. Therefore here it is plainly stated that th^re is the baptism in the burial. 2, We believe that water baptism as well was the spiritual, if not water baptism and not the spiritual is here referred to. Of course we must remember that by a well known figure baptism is f^aid to eff\*ct what it only symbolizes. Paul is arguing that the members of the church in Rome are all dead in sin, and that there- fore the taunt that unconditional justification would lead to sin, cannot be true. To prore this he refers them to the fact that in their baptism mto Christ they were baptized into his death. Then to make it plain that in their baptism into Christ they were thus baptized into his death, he refers them to the form of their baptism— a burial — wbich was to show forth this very fact, and savs, " therefore— for this very purpose— we are buried," Ac. Besides, in v. 5 it reads, " For if we have been planted together (grown together, literally) ir\ the likeness of his death,^* Ac. Here baptism is called the likeness ot the Saviour's death, referring to its representation as a burial in the preceding verse. Now spiritual baptism could not possibly be called a likeness-r-a repre- sentation—of the Saviour's death. It must be something visible to which he refers, and this visible likeness to the Saviour's death described as a burial must be immersion. It can by no manner of twisting be made a sprinkling or a pouring. Conybeare and Howson in Life and Epis, of St. Paul hfsve expressed the idea of this verse as follows, " LiterAlly have become partakers of a vital union of the representation of his death {in baptism.) The mean- ing appears to be, if we have shared the re. Mty of His death, Whereof we have undergone the likeness.*' Well therefore mny 'they say, " This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the pnmrtive baptism was by immersion." 3, But allow these passages, Rom. 6 : 4, 5 and Col. 2 : 12, to T 3$ refer to spiritual baptism, and it points to immersion as the literal baptism all the same. Why, on this supposition, is the spiritual baptism called a burial ? It cannot be because there is any actual burial m what is spiritual, for this is an absurdity. Can it be for any other reason than that the water baptism is a burial, and that the spiritual is, in a figurative way, described through the material fact which represents it? If the water baptism had been a sprinkling, can we imagine the apostle saying buried with him by baptism viz., in that case— by sprinkling ? Well therefore may Bp. Headley B&y thnmmj jj<ij tim*nmij <m^ ''If Baptism had been then performed a.s ft is nov/ among us (by sprinkling) we should never have so much as heard of such form of expression, of dying and rising again in this rite.'' Besides, what a somersault this new ground requires our Pedo- baptists friends to make? To bring in affusion, their great argument is that the spirit is said to be affu.sed, and that the water baptism is to be affused also, because it must conform to the representation of the Spirit's baptism. Whereas, now, to get rid of burial by baptism they declare that this refers to the Spirit's baptism, but that the water baptism need not conform to the representation of the spiritual. How convenient ! If thev would only notice that the effects of the Spirit on the soul, and not the mode ! of the Spirit's coming is called a baptism, then there would not be this apparent conflict between the repre- sentations of the St;iritual baptism, which requires them to con- tradict themselves point blank. 4, The history of the interpretation of this passage throws much light upon its moaning. The early Fathers beginnmg with T^rtullian who was born about 150 A.D. and including Basil, Cyril Chrysostom, Gregory Nazienzen, Ambrose, John of Damascus, Theophylact &c. all int^'^pret this passage as referring to water baptism by immersion. And sOj do all modern scholars, so far as I can learn, until Moses 39 throws born regory DC. all irsion. [oses Stuart, including such names as Luther, Zuingle. Wesley, Whitfield, Baxter, A. Clark, Chalmers, Bloomfield, Conybeare? Meyer, and a host of others. Since M. Stuart's attempt to explain Rom. 6 : 4,5, so as not necessarily to include a reference to immersion, but few have bad the hardihood to follow him. Until there was need then of a different interpretation to serve a controversial purpose in evading the force of the Baptist argument, no one thought of explaining this passage except as referring to baptism as immersion, and few have done so even since. Who can fail to see the force of thea©. facts ? 5, Finally the true symbolism helps to the true interpretation of this passage, and to the truth about the mode *of baptism. Even Mr. McK. admits that baptism is to symbolize the work of regeneration in the soul, and Rom. 6 : 4,5, and Col. 2: 12 prove it. But how can we best represent that change by which old things pass away and all things become new — by which the old man is crucified, and the person becomes a new creature ? By what stretch of the imagination can we see this shown forth in sprinkling or pouring? ITow can we fail to see it vividly and impressivf^Iv portrayed in the burial in the water — death to the old — and rising out of the water — resurrection to the new? Fn^itisn) is lepvesented again inEph 5 : 26, and Tit. 3 : 5 as a l>ath or bathing— the word used in thf original referring to a bathing of the whole body. But how the whole body could be sjiid to be !)athed b}' baptism, if baptisnf t\'er^ f\ sprinkling or a pouring 1 fin.l not, but in immersion I see such a bathing. o«g«3 , ' t do not purpose to follow Mr. McK.. and those from whom he borrows, throujrli all their remarks about the '^^^ ^"^ '^'^^v^> 'i\ ', .ui,^.;^ j^;u W <^^.ti-r »» a; '^-JiiJiU C^ »w'>ifi tO hap, <P0 ' ' O'^ ** nOiS'; OREKK PRKPO^'lTTOXS. ' vdX am> jou-w i.?iie ,v.i4«i', 'i)j ui,M 'vu4]vm ",if>ie'i A'greatdeftl of dust can be thrown into the eyes of the un- Biiokrlv reader, which it is almost imijossible to remove. The 40 re«wrk8 a^jt "into the mountain '* not oaeaning under its sur- face, and so "into tlie water '* not signifying under the surface of the water may be answered by those who think them worth the trouble The attempt to make it appear that in the account of John's baptism " Jordan " and even the " river of Jordan " does not mean the river of Jordan at all has overlooked one fact. In Mark ] : 9 our Lord is said to be baptized eis ion Jordaneii into the Jordan. Now no sleight of hand with the preposition eis intOy here, can make sense, if we regard ** Jordan " as a place and not the river. Allow that eis m<»ans to, or up to or unloy and it be comes "and was baptized of John to up to, or tin^o, the land of Jordan," which is nonsense. Neither will any dexterity with the preposition avail here when we admit that " Jordan " means "the river of Jordan " as v 5 says. Take <o, and up tOy and untOy as meanings of eis in this passage in this case and there is nonsense again, "and was baptized of John tOyup to, unto the Jordan (the river)." Still more absurd would it appear should we insert sprinkle for baptize, as Pedo-baptists would have it, " and was sprinkled of John toy up to, unto the Jordan." Take, on the other hand the meaning for which Baptist contend. '' and was immersed of John into the Jordan," and it is plain and clear. It utterly refuses to be made to serve any other sense. Again this preposition eiSy in the Gospels and Acts, is tran- slated " into " 455 times and " to " only 155 times. But even in the compararively few times in which it is rendered " to " it means into — for it is used of going " to " a city or place into which the one who went entered. The preposition en in the Gospels and Acts is translated " in " 920 times, and " with " only 29 times, and of these 29 times it refers 11 times to baptism. The reader can thus judge whether eisjin the expression " going down eis the water," means " to " or " into " the water, and whether en in the expressions " baptized en the Jordan '' or " baptiied en the water " or " baptized en the Holy Spirit" means " in " the Jordan, 41 bran- m in " it linto the )nly [The lown iT en the lao, '• in " the water, " in " the Spirit, or " with " the Jordan, water, Spirit. That the preposition ek has " out of '' for its meaning can be seen by any who knows the fact that there are two Greek words to express the two ideas " from " and " out of." When " from " in distinction to ^* out of " is to be expressed, then apo is used, but when "out of in distinction to ''from," then ek is used. The fact then that ek is used of baptism as well as apo, proves beyond a doubt that the candidates came up " out of " the water. The one case when apo is used in Matthew's descripticn of the baptism of our Lord, is probably due to the fact that apo designates the point at which the Spiiit descended and as he was gomg up " from " the water. But in Marks account it is ek that is used, and so our Lord must have been into the water. If Mr. McK had been more careful in his remarks about this preposition he would have reduced his point three quarters nearly. Instead of ek b<^ing translated "out of" only Jive times in the Acts, it is so translated eighteen times. It is true that it is usually translated " from," but in these cases it conveys the sense "out of " as an instance or two will show, Acts 2: 2 " from heav3n '" Acts 3 : 16 •' from the dead." Acts 18 : 1,2, from Rome, from Athens, <fec., do not mean from the outside of heaven, the realm of the dead, Rome and Athens, but from within— om^ of. Neither are the cases cited by Mr. McKay exceptions. Rom 1 : 17. The righteousness of God is revealed out of faith — faith is its subjective force. Matt 12:23. The fruit of the tree is the source out of which is our knowledge of it. Jn. 10 : 32. The good works of Christ had their source in God. To sum up the argument from the prepositions then. If sprinkling or pouring were the original baptism, then they were used in a very extraordinary sense ; whereas, if baptism were an immersion, they had their most common meaning. This is not denied by any one who has a reputation for scholarship worth keeping. The most that is claimed by Pedo-baptists is that the 42 prepositions do not necessarily exclude sprinkling and include immersion. But the circumstances make it almost imposaiblo to conceive that baptism was by sprinkling. Why, on this suppo- sition, were places chosen for baptism where there was much water, or many v.'aters, or at the Jordan river. Why unless they went into the water should they take the trouble to go down to It? Why unless to immerse did they go into it, both baptiaer and baptized, and incur, according to our opponents, all the fear- ful danger of cold and the inconvenience of wet clothing for nothing? On the supposition that baptism was an immersion, however, all is consistent. They resort to the plentiful waters because they are needed, they go down both into the water, be- cause the candidate was to be buried therein and the baptizer was to bury him. From the prepositions and the circumstances, then, there is another strong presumptive argument for the Baptist view, although we do not regard it as demonstrable. SUMMARY. Thus we have striven to meet objections to immersion fairly. The reader must judge whether they have not been met sufficient- ly—nay, whether the most have not proved arguments for us, scarcely disguised. In every case but one or two, we have referred the reader to the passages of the author where our quotations may be found, so that tney can verily for themselves. In the course of the discussion, also, the following facts, among others have been made apparent. In the assumption that immersion was the baptism practiced by Christ and the apostles, all is clear and consistent. The Greek word haptizo is taken in the sense in which the people used and undei stood it — in the sense in which the Greeks of to-day, and the church of which they form a part, use and understand it — instead of having forced upon it a meaning not only totally foreign to it, but also that of another common word 43 liced the ieks and not rord in the language, thus doubly confusing and misleading the people The references to baptism in the New Testament are simple and easily understood, requiring no departure from the ordinary use of language. ' In ' is not required to be changed to * at ' * with ' »&c., nor ' into to ' to ' &c., nor • out of ' to * from. ' Neither do we have to advocate the absurd idea of a washing or bathing of the whole body by sprinkling a few drops of water on the face, nor are we required to say that the application of these drops is a burial, as baptism is declared to be. As would be expected on the supposition that the baptism of the apostles was an immers- ion, we hnd the writers of the first and second and succeeding centuries declare it to be such, and when sprinkling and pouring are introduced we find them regarded as only permitted as bap- tism when immersion could not be administered, and even in this case they were regarded as insufficient to qualify for offices in the church, while sprinkling only gained an equality with im- mersion through the Pope of Rome, by whom also the Virgin Mary is put upon an equality with the Son of God, and this only after thirteen centuries. On the supposition, however, that spiinkling was the baptism of the New Testament we have to face the following absurdities : 1st. Our Lord chose the word in GreeK which always meant to immerse, and never to sprinkle to designate the act of sprinkling, instead of taking the word rantizo which ever meant to sprinkle. Thus our Lord made it necessary for all who spoke of the chris- tian ordinance to explain that baptizo in reference to it, did not mean baptizo but rantizo, and whenever there was no one to make this explanation ; the people were most surely deluded. 2nd. In the New Testament reference to baptism, in addition to un- natural uses of prepositions, kc, and ftinciful explanations of the need of much water for sprinkling a few drops upon each candi- date, we must understand the Apostles to describe such sprink- ling as a bathing of the whole body, Ephe. 5, 16, Titus 3, 5, a wash- 44 ing of tho whole body. Acts 22, 19, Heb. 10, 22, a burial, Rom. 6, 4, Col. 2, 12. 3rd, Although our Lord commanded sprinkling, and the Apostles practised it, Barnabas and Hermes^ who were con- temporary with the latter, refer to baptism in terms consistent only with immersion, and Justin Martyr, who wrote withm forty years of John and all the early fathers, in scores of references to baptism, always describe it as an immersion, which it was not, and never speak of it as a sprinkling, which it always was in Apostolic times ! 4th, Nay more, if sprinkling was the practice of the Apostles, then within 1-JO or 200 yeai's after their time, so absolutely had the knowledge of the practice faded from the mind of the church, that when the original baptism by sprinkling was again adminis- tered, 250 years from the birth of Christ, all the church looked upon it as to be allowed only when immersion was impossible, and even then as so inferior to immersion, that those who had been sprinkled were disqualified for church otfices ! Will pedo- baptists please explain how within such a short period the practice of the Apostles could have been abandoned in the whole church, and not only abandoned but entirely forgotten. What led the church to wish the change ? As the chan>»e took place and was forgotten in the space of three generations, what made the change so sudden and general ? How did it happen that no grandfather ever told of the old baptism to his grandchildren, or no grandchild ever remembered it ! In view, then, of the fact that all lines of evidence agree in requiring immersion, and that all lines agree in rejecting sprink- ling and pouring, so that the assumption that they were practised is attended by such absurdities as the above, the reader can judge whether Mr. McKay's challenge to Baptists to produce a single undoubted instance of immersion from the Bible needs any further attention. 45 )e in Irink- Itised can ice a lany Neither let the reader suppose that the only question between us and other denominations, as to the mode of baptism, is merely one of more or less water. The real issue is on a principle which has to do with adherence to all truth. It is this, shall we feel ourselves bound to yield an exact obedience to the definite in- structions of our Lord, thus avowing our belief that he had a specific purpose to serve in the ordinance as he commanded it, which cannot be so well served in any other way, or shall we take the liberty to change what he has ordained, thus encourag- ing a spirit of looseness and rashness, while we attribute to our liord the folly of enjoining what is so immaterial that so distant an approach as sprinkling is to immersion will do as well as that which He commands, The nature of the issue can be seen in the words of Jn.Calyin Institutes IV, XIX, " But whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance. Churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect to act according to the difference of countries. The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immers- ion was the practice of the ancient church.'^ Baptists, on the con- trary, hold that the form of baptism is adapted by divine wisdom to serve the divine purpose, and that therefore neither Jn. Calvin nor anyone else can tamper with it, or enjoin a different form, without putting himself above Christ and in opposition to Him. Finally, may we not urge upon the reader the duty of giving to this question a calm and unbiassed consideration. To be on the side of truth in all things is to be on the side of God in every- thing ; for he is Truth. To be on the side of error in anything is to be against him in something. We shall soon all be in our graves, and any saving of self denial through wilfully or carelessly remaining in partial error, will not serve us But the man who has been willing to suffer even that God's truth in its wholeness may have the devotion of his life, shall then have eternal honor. Y/7 \ 4S And 80 we leave this work, to which we have devoted our last few days in Ontario, in the hands of Ilim for whose truth an«l glory it has been done. May he accept it, although so Izttlf fitted to serve so high a purpose. May the Ix)rd forgive His Hf^rvant, if, in the desire to tear the veil from the divine features of nacred truth, he has used to ungentle a hand, or has, in the smallest thing, wronged one of the Ijord's loved ones. And may He use it aa He plea&e, in some small way. r last li an<l fitted 'vant, acred alleet e use ■i^-:; ■■^'< .-> r y ' > iV'.v::.^, ^ "pwr wt** THE BAFnSM OF CHiaST. THE BBPKBIiBNTATlOir W THB MOSAIC WOKR OV THB DOMB OF THE ; BAPTISTERY AT RAVRNNA. The truth about this pieoe of art of whioh Mr McKay roakas Buoh use, may be learned from the following quotations !- Dr. Cote " Aroheeology of Baptigm.' *< The mosaics of this baptistery hav&been repeatedly restored, and well informed critics are of opinion that unwarrantable additions and alterations have been made m this magniAoent work by incompetent artists. These restorations have been reu'lered necessary by the leaky condition of the cupola-^a defect whioh, unfortunately still exists. PaoiauduB, a Latin writer in his De Cultu S, Joannis Baptist^) asks, in view of this mosaic work, '< Was our Lord baptixed by aspersion ? This is so far from being so that nothing can be moie contrary to the truth, but it must he attributed to the error and ignorance of painters, who, being often unacquainted with history, or believing they could dare everything, sometimes greatly altered the subjects they portrayed," The smallest of the fBtKFly fonts alluded to by J)r Bobinson in his Lex art. baptiao^wi disproving immersion, was, according to his own measurement, Bib. Kes I p. 7H, fow feet in diamMer on ih6 iiiMde, and three /Get nine inchaa d^m. When the reader re- members that this is the i^mallest of the fonts to wbict he alludes, and that it was not probably erected until after infant baptism had become general, he d^n ju^^S^ ^^ which side the evidence of the early fonts lies. WhtV would think of having the smallei^i of fonts of this sine to sprinkle infants? ft" is lar^e even to im merse them. Mr. McKay,'s reproduction of this objootion ia unfortunate. \ The fltatament that ^' Nd picture in the world earlier than ik^ 16tb century represents our Lord au being bapiiied by dipping " is aliuos^t the e^iact reverse of the truth, as can be seen fay th^ reallSr i^l^ffiienoe to Or. Ootes <> Archeology of Baptism.' ■^v

cihm_58382

"Teachers and teaching [microform] : an address delivered before the Teachers' Association for the S(...TRUNCATED)

"IMAGE EVALUATION \nTEST TARGET (MT-3) \n\n\n:-••/•. \n\n\n«9- \n\n\n1.0 \n\n\nI.I \n\n\n1(...TRUNCATED)

histoiredesducs02gugoog

Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477

"Google \n\n\n\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED)

diarydrthomasca00cartgoog

The Diary of Dr. Thomas Cartwright, Bishop of Chester: Commencing at the Time of His Elevation ...

"Google \n\n\n\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED)

dermatologischem20leipuoft

Dermatologische Monatsschrift

"i. - ■ ^ \n\nMONATSHEFTE vorian \n\n\nFOR \n\nPRAKTISCHE DEMATOLOGIE. \n\nUNTER M(...TRUNCATED)

monthlyreposito15unkngoog

The monthly repository of theology and general literature

"This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED)

bengalasafieldm01wyligoog

Bengal as a Field of Missions

"Google \n\n\n\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED)

oeuvresducardina03retzuoft

"Oeuvres du cardinal de Retz. Nouv. éd., rev. sur les plus anciennes impressions et les autographes(...TRUNCATED)

"TO\\\\0H'\\0 \n\n\nLES \n\nGRANDS ECRIYAINS \n\nDE LA FRANCE \n\nNOUVELLES EDITIONS \n\nrL(...TRUNCATED)

cihm_07746

"The Hunt and Douglas process for extracting copper from its ores [microform] : with an appendix inc(...TRUNCATED)

"IMAGE EVALUATION \nTEST TARGET (MT-3) \n\n\n/. \n\n\n'k \n\n\n>\"a \n\n\n%° \n\n\nf ^ \n\n\n(...TRUNCATED)

memoirschiefinc00trimgoog

"Memoirs of the chief incidents of the public life of Sir George Thomas Staunton, Bart., hon. D.C.L.(...TRUNCATED)

"\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it (...TRUNCATED)